Challenging Tabula Rasa: Logic

[Fixed Cross]

Tab, you said in a thread I read this morning that you are driven mostly by logic. Loose paraphrase.

My objection is that everyone thinks this of themselves.

My contention is that no one has logically derived that s/he is driven by logic, or mostly lives by logic, or mostly follows logic in arriving at conclusions and at actions, reactions and life-stratagems.

My challenge is, can you please explain logically how it is that you are a logically driven character.

Disclaimer: I consider you righteous smart. But I do not think this is rooted in your intellectual methods.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Everyone is driven by intuition. There may be a lot of focus on logic, but even the application of logic to life, language, situations, will require all sorts of intuition.

Also, no one is driven by logic. Logic has no drive. It's a tool. We are all driven by emotion and desire. Without those drivers we don't even get out of bed.

Me, I am well aware that many micro and macro decisions are based on intuition. Sure, logic gets applied when it can be.

[Fixed Cross]

Sure, logic is clearly a means and not a ground.

It always takes a ground, sometimes it is deliberately given one. In the former case, the operations of the logic rest on and are bound for values the operator isn't aware of, because he hasn't clarified at the outset the complete set of premises on which the logic is asked to work.

Usually we catch a train of logic somewhere along its way and jump on it, much like lifeforms being born along a strand of life the origin and end of which is dark to them.

In the end though, logic itself has its origin, its ground for existing, a final cause. Result of this, logic having a particular cause and not a universal one is that it generates a certain kind of structure.
Im not saying we can avoid this structure or should, but that we should know it is there and try to perceive it. As of course an exercise in self-knowledge.


I agree that intuition is usually the forward-moving protocol of deciphering ones role to the immediate future, where logic is used to retrace ones steps and plan on a grand scale in accordance with our evolving causality models. But it would be a very barren, wiry and hollow structure if it wasn't warped to some wyrd, some species of consequentiality of which logic is a thin but bright reflection.

[Fixed Cross]

Well Tab I left once and had no good reason to come back. Thanks to the resident zoology here for reminding me instantly that this place is no longer my habitat.




Salute to all real humans.

[Magnus Anderson]

Also, no one is driven by logic. Logic has no drive. It's a tool. We are all driven by emotion and desire. Without those drivers we don't even get out of bed.

This is understandable. The purpose of logic is to map reality, the purpose of mapping reality is to predict the future, and the purpose of predicting the future is to choose what to do now so that the future will be the way we want it to be (or at least, as close to what we want it to be as possible.)

But there is a different sense in which people can be driven by logic. Perhaps what they want to say is that they are making a lot more effort than others in trying to be as realistic as possible (and they want to be as realistic as possible because they think that being realistic is the surest way to increase the likelihood of attaining one's beliefs.)

And being driven by emotion, as I'm sure you know, most commonly describes certain type of behavior that goes against one's interests.

What I'm seeing here is people misunderstanding Sir Tabula Rasa. To be clear, I have no idea what he said and what FC is responding to, but my first impression is that he's being misunderstood.

In other news, the thread title made me think this thread is about the logical examination of the philosophical idea that human beings are born tabula rasa.

Everyone is driven by intuition. There may be a lot of focus on logic, but even the application of logic to life, language, situations, will require all sorts of intuition.

It would be useful to examine the difference between the two words. Do they really represent different things? to what extent? and to what level of significance?

What's certain is that they are both tools. Not only that, they are both the same kind of tool. Both are epistemological tools i.e. tools used to form beliefs about reality.

The peculiar thing about intuition is that it's the process of forming beliefs where:

1) one is unaware of the process (one does not know how one comes to accept the belief)
2) one is often, but not always, unaware of the end product (the belief)

When we walk, we use intuition to model the ground. It's an interesting example because we're both unaware of the process and the end product. We don't know how we build the model of the ground, but also, we are unaware of the model that we build. Instead, we are merely aware of the kind of step we need to make (and sometimes, even that escapes our awareness.)

Either way, not sure why you think there aren't people who are more logical than others. Perhaps Tab isn't as logical as he claims -- fine. But I see no reason to attack the idea of logical man in general. And what if he merely wanted to say that he's more realistic than others? Perhaps this distinction between intuition and logic, the dual-process theory put forward by William James, was nowhere near his mind at the time?

Now I turn my head to face FC:

Sure, logic is clearly a means and not a ground.

Being realistic is probably not the highest goal of human beings. The highest goal is something else but being realistic is perhaps the best way to ensure that the highest goal is attained. The interesting question is: to what extent and about what?

[Karpel Tunnel]

But there is a different sense in which people can be driven by logic. Perhaps what they want to say is that they are making a lot more effort than others in trying to be as realistic as possible (and they want to be as realistic as possible because they think that being realistic is the surest way to increase the likelihood of attaining one's beliefs.)

Sure, and if it had been worded your way - or otherwise clearly been intended that way - I would have focused on the other issue: the issue of intuition and non-logical processes being essential, even for the us of logic. With your version desire is in the picture. Logic is a tool chosen because of certain goals.

And being driven by emotion, as I'm sure you know, most commonly describes certain type of behavior that goes against one's interests.

There's a contradiction in this sentence, to me. If they're my interests then my emotions are involved. Emotions are motivators, along with desires. Without them we do not move toward things.

If all you do is emote, like scream at a wall, well, you won't get your doctorate and be able to.....whatever your interest was. But without being driven by emotions (passions) and desires, you are aren't driven. They are our drives. Logic can't drive anything, for example.

What I'm seeing here is people misunderstanding Sir Tabula Rasa. To be clear, I have no idea what he said and what FC is responding to, but my first impression is that he's being misunderstood.

Could be.

In other news, the thread title made me think this thread is about the logical examination of the philosophical idea that human beings are born tabula rasa.

I don't think this is true. I think we have temperments and tendencies. I think separated twin studies bear this out pretty well. Compared to other animals we can fill in a tremendous amount more stuff in the brain. And this includes learning skills and behaviors, not just knowledge. And also complicated self-relations that are less likely in other animals. So, I am in no way denying nurture's sway over what we become.

Everyone is driven by intuition. There may be a lot of focus on logic, but even the application of logic to life, language, situations, will require all sorts of intuition.

It would be useful to examine the difference between the two words. Do they really represent different things? to what extent? and to what level of significance?

I agree. I think they are often thought of as distinct, but I disagree. Part of the issue is that much of intuition is blackboxed. We don't know exactly how conclusions are being reached, especially in many experts, but also in prodigies.

What's certain is that they are both tools. Not only that, they are both the same kind of tool. Both are epistemological tools i.e. tools used to form beliefs about reality.

The peculiar thing about intuition is that it's the process of forming beliefs where:

1) one is unaware of the process (one does not know how one comes to accept the belief)
2) one is often, but not always, unaware of the end product (the belief)

Yes.

When we walk, we use intuition to model the ground. It's an interesting example because we're both unaware of the process and the end product. We don't know how we build the model of the ground, but also, we are unaware of the model that we build. Instead, we are merely aware of the kind of step we need to make (and sometimes, even that escapes our awareness.)

Sometimes we did build up skills more consciously and now they are second nature and we may have even forgotten the steps. But yes it can be like this.

Either way, not sure why you think there aren't people who are more logical than others.

I don't think I said that or implied that, though I can imagine someone reading it that way. Yes, some people can be more logical than others. And one could also say that some people are more driven to be logical. Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's not. There is a balance one should have when trying to problem solve, for example. Avoiding intuition and not trusting it can cause problems. I notice a lot of people who bring to bear logical, verbal skills to every problem, often not allowing things to percolate and distrusting anything they cannot logically (in their minds) explained. This can be very problematic. Of course avoiding logic is a problem also. And further just because someone follows their intuition does not mean they are right. One can be very intuitive (in the sense of insightful) in one, a few, no, areas of life. There are plenty of people with poor intuitions. And schools are fairly poor at teaching allowing either. I think they have a tendency to actively try to squash intuition, unless it is an a minor subject like art.

Perhaps Tab isn't as logical as he claims -- fine. But I see no reason to attack the idea of logical man in general. And what if he merely wanted to say that he's more realistic than others? Perhaps this distinction between intuition and logic, the dual-process theory put forward by William James, was nowhere near his mind at the time?

Sure, I think there are people who are more logical than others and also people who can be more logical when that is appropriate. Though my sense is announcing it makes me doubt it. I mean from the posts I've seen he's certainly got more mental skills than the average person. None of what I have written is meant as a dig at Tab, except me saying that if you announce you are logic driven, it's a warning signal to me. Of course, I'd need to see the context to understand that further.

It's a bit like saying 'I am really rational'. Uhuh. What are you trying to get me to think/do/buy? In a sense it is a reverse ad hom. When you insult or focus on the person you disagree with instead of their argument, that's a direct ad hom. If you announce that you are, essentially, really logical, or 'rational', or think really well, you are telling and not showing.

Also one can intend to be logical but not be. IOW one can focus a lot on deduction say, but be terrible at it. Either because your logic is not so good, or your intuition is not so good, or both.

Sure, logic is clearly a means and not a ground.

Being realistic is probably not the highest goal of human beings. The highest goal is something else but being realistic is perhaps the best way to ensure that the highest goal is attained.

I don't think that's mine. I think mine would be more self-actualization, and least in some ways that is defined. Now one needs to be realistic about both the world and self to do this, but being realistic is a means. And often to reach that I am decidedly non-rational: all sorts of creative, non-verbal, expressive, exploratory, contemplative (in non-logical ways, though logical ways can occur also) and so on.

So at any given moment I may well be engaging is quite non-logical (which is not the same as illogical) processes. Or you could say non-rational processes.

And I would at that it's not be actualized in isolation, this monad self, but part of the goal is also to be connected to amazing other people (and animals and nature in general and the creative works of others). And those relations will have incredible room for non-logical interactions and processes also.

The interesting question is: to what extent and about what?

[Magnus Anderson]

Sure, and if it had been worded this way I would have focused on the other issue: that of intuition and non-logical processes being essential, even for the us of logic. With your version desire is in the picture. Logic is a tool chosen because of certain goals.

Yes, but both logic and intuition (:

There's a contradiction in this sentence, to me. If there my interests then my emotions are involved. Emotions are motivators, along with desires. Without them we do not move to what would be our interests if we had emotions and desires.

Emotion, I've been told, comes from the word "motion", as in, e-motion. So emotions move us -- they make us act in certain way. I find that agreeable enough. When I'm emotional, I'm inclined to act certain way. When I'm angry, I want to smack someone's face (: But do emotions represent the highest goal? Do I want to smack someone's face because that's an end in itself (the highest goal) or do I want to smack someone's face because I want to achieve something else? I'd say that emotions can represent either, but in many cases, perhaps in most cases, they refer to the latter. So I see nothing wrong with the notion that emotions can contradict our interests. You yell at someone and later realize it wasn't the best thing to do. Of course, emotions aren't necessarily bad. It depends on the situation. And some emotions are beyond good/bad because they do not represent means but ends.

If all you do is emote, like scream at a wall, well, you won't get your doctorate and be able to.....whatever your interest was. But without being driven by emotions (passions) and desires, you are aren't driven.

Well yeah, I can't see myself being motivated to do something without having positive feelings at the same time.

I agree. I think they are often thought of as distinct, but I disagree. Part of the issue is that much of intuition is blackboxed. We don't know exactly how conclusions are being reached, especially in many experts, but also in prodigies.

We only know what we need to know (: Most of the terrain is uncharted, partly because there's no need to explore it, partly because it's too difficult to do so.

In my mind, there's no doubt the two concepts refer to two different things. They are, after all, only words, invented by people, with certain meanings assigned to them. What I am not sure about is their utility. I don't find these concepts particularly useful. They seem to spread more confusion than clarity.

What people call "logic" or "reason" is simply thinking in such a way that one becomes conscious of parts of the process before one becomes conscious of the result of the process. Rather superficial distinction, I'd say.

Sometimes we did build up skills more consciously and now they are second nature and we may have even forgotten the steps. But yes it can be like this.

That's true.

There is a balance one should have when trying to problem solve, for example. Avoiding intuition and not trusting it can cause problems. I notice a lot of people who bring to bear logical, verbal skills to every problem, often not allowing things to percolate and distrusting anything they cannot logically (in their minds) explain. This can be very problematic. Of course avoiding logic is a problem also. And further just because someone follows their intuition does not mean they are right. One can be very intuitive (in the sense of insightful) in one, a few, no, areas of life. There are plenty of people with poor intuitions. And schools are fairly poor at teaching either. I think they have a tendency to actively try to squash intuition, unless it is an a minor subject like art.

I think that "being logical" is often used to mean no more than "being rational" as opposed to "being emotional" which is used to mean no more than "being irrational".

To be honest, I've no idea what "verbal skills" means. It sounds like "the ability to put one's thoughts into words" to me. But is that what's meant? I don't think so.

But surely, different problems require different approaches. That makes perfect sense.

None of what I have written is meant as a dig at Tab

I'm sure of that. I had Sir Fixed Cross in mind when I wrote that (:

except me saying that if you announce you are logic driven, it's a warning signal to me

To me, it sounds like they are saying "I'm more realistic than the average Joe".

When you insult or focus on the person you disagree with instead of their argument, that's a direct ad hom. If you announce that you are, essentially, really logical, or 'rational', think really well, you are telling and not showing.

That's true.

[Fixed Cross]

MAGNUS ANDERSON:


"Being realistic is probably not the highest goal of human beings. The highest goal is something else but being realistic is perhaps the best way to ensure that the highest goal is attained. The interesting question is: to what extent and about what?"


I don't know why you bringup being realistic, but I suspect that, to you, logic and being realistic are identical. But to me they're not at all.

Often it is more realistic to not think too much and just do what you're gonna do.
Not that Im all too great at that kind of realism. But, don't conflate terms.



As for goals, you know my stance. Values.
We are motivated by values, and we can use logic to process abstractions of these values so as to figure out ways of attaining these values values, values values, said the word too much values.

But, also, we can just smell a value and run after it and devour it without giving it a thought.

[Magnus Anderson]

The two terms are not identical but it's my impression that on average when someone says they are logical they are in fact claiming they are more realistic than the average person. It might not be the case in this particular scenario, however. What do I know?

Logic vs emotion is almost the same as rational vs irrational and realistic vs unrealistic.

Where's Tabula Rasa to help us solve this problem?

[Fixed Cross]

The two terms are not identical but it's my impression that on average when someone says they are logical they are in fact claiming they are more realistic than the average person.

For sure no doubt.
Such claims tend to be made by people who equate the two.

Maybe they have a point. But no one ever manages to prove it.
Because there is no grounds to prove it. How are you going to prove logical attitude or realism when you havent established criteria of demonstration?

If some one is very healthy, happy, prosperous and wholesomely influential, they are likely very realistic and logical both but they likely wont be claiming these things - they might claim something a little more interesting, like will-power.

It might not be the case in this particular scenario, however. What do I know?

Logic vs emotion is almost the same as rational vs irrational and realistic vs unrealistic.

Hmm. Not too sure about that.
Emotions are required for people to make sense to themselves. Theres been studies that show reason is impossible without emotion - because reason needs, as mentioned, a ground, and emotions are the best tool for us to discern and establish a ground.

Where's Tabula Rasa to help us solve this problem?

Well I said to him I wouldnt be back here so my being here is illogical.

[Magnus Anderson]

Such claims tend to be made by people who equate the two.

Maybe they are not equating them but merely using one term (e.g. logic) in more than one way. Words can have multiple meanings.

Emotions are required for people to make sense to themselves. Theres been studies that show reason is impossible without emotion - because reason needs, as mentioned, a ground, and emotions are the best tool for us to discern and establish a ground.

Again, the word "emotion" can be, and often is, used in more than one way. It's akin to how the word "generalization" can have a neutral meaning in one context and a negative one in another.

But no one ever manages to prove it.
Because there is no grounds to prove it. How are you going to prove logical attitude or realism when you havent established criteria of demonstration.

Hmm..

Thinking is a process by which one forms beliefs regarding things that haven't been observed. It has no choice but to make use of imagination and to leave itself up to what is known as natural selection. Then this thing called natural selection selects what kind of imaginations persist and what kind of imaginations die out. So the question is, how can one demonstrate what they imagine to be the case is indeed the case without making an appeal to tradition?

[Fixed Cross]

You do need logic for that, but some other things as well, like content.

The content is often overlooked. Its made out of the values I talk of in value ontology.

Logic is easy, and it accounts for repeatable, predicable and categorizable representations which may or may not represent realities or possibilities.

We can easily make a logical argument soundly and arrive at utter nonsense, if we have faulty premises. Like all cats are blue, so if a cat is orange it doesn't exist.

Values + values = sometimes logic. Logic is like a tangent to values.
So what you can build with logic is always going to be flat, like two dimensional. It is like a commentary on how things are generally arranged, but not a potency like steel is a potency or fire, or mind.

I know I rant a lot of the round. Cheers.

[Magnus Anderson]

I understand the word "logic" is commonly used to refer to deductive reasoning, which is, in a sense, rather dead, since it operates within a box (determined by initial premises.)

I do agree that the box itself, the set of initial assumptions that guide deductive reasoning, is not logically derived. But whould I say the box is constructed out of values? Yes and no. Depends on what you mean by "values".

As I said in the previous post, the box is a product of imagination and each one of us has a preferred way of making conjectures. In this limited sense, the box is indeed a matter of preference.

If all swans we've observed so far are white, what makes us think that all other swans in existence are also white?

Certainly not observation (we haven't observed all of the swans in the existence) and probably not deductive reasoning (I assume noone believes there's such a thing as an infinite chain of reasons which means there is at least one belief in the chain that is not derived from prior beliefs.)

The answer is imagination.

And how you're going to imagine things is up to you.
The rest is up to the universe.

Either you (and your ideas) continue to exist or you don't.

[Fixed Cross]

I understand the word "logic" is commonly used to refer to deductive reasoning, which is, in a sense, rather dead, since it operates within a box (determined by initial premises.)

I do agree that the box itself, the set of initial assumptions that guide deductive reasoning, is not logically derived. But whould I say the box is constructed out of values? Yes and no. Depends on what you mean by "values".

Values I mean are irreducible... um, values.
So, when you break down a logical formula, you're left with the values which cant be reduced to each other.

The box metaphor seems apt.

As I said in the previous post, the box is a product of imagination and each one of us has a preferred way of making conjectures. In this limited sense, the box is indeed a matter of preference.

Yes imagination, or will; subjectivity, i.e. "live" reality in any case.

If all swans we've observed so far are white, what makes us think that all other swans in existence are also white?

Its only a fair guess, nothing to do with logic.
In as far as I use the term anyway.

Certainly not observation (we haven't observed all of the swans in the existence) and probably not deductive reasoning (I assume noone believes there's such a thing as an infinite chain of reasons which means there is at least one belief in the chain that is not derived from prior beliefs.)

The answer is imagination.

And how you're going to imagine things is up to you.
The rest is up to the universe.

Either you (and your ideas) continue to exist or you don't.

...... yes.

Imagination is a pretty good basic criterion actually.

[Magnus Anderson]

So, when you break down a logical formula, you're left with the values which cant be reduced to each other.

I would call those axioms or statements that are taken to be unconditionally true (which means they aren't derived from other statements.)

[promethean75]

The world itself is like a set of atomic facts, and statements about those facts reflect the logical form of the way the world is. But there is no 'value' in the world in the same way there are atomic facts, so value predicates can't be right or wrong. But statements that reflect more clearly the rules of logic, deductive truths for instance, can be.

Something like a 'good movie' or a 'lousy morning' or a 'delicious hot ham 'n cheese' doesn't exist in the real world. These predicates don't reflect possible atomic properties or states in the world.

[Magnus Anderson]

Oh hai Ludwig. How's it in afterlife?

[Fixed Cross]

ese' doesn't exist in the real world. These predicates don't reflect possible atomic properties or states in the world.

A Kantian distinction of real/unreal.
Nietzsche refuses it.

[Fixed Cross]

So, when you break down a logical formula, you're left with the values which cant be reduced to each other.

I would call those axioms or statements that are taken to be unconditionally true (which means they aren't derived from other statements.)

Yes but value ontology assumes that the more subjective a drive, the less conditional it is.
General Relativity speaks the same but in a less general paradigm.

Thought as it approaches a metaphysical absolute which can not exist but must be presumed for reason to convince itself of having the right to its next step.
It was beyond Plato, Francis Bacon reintroduced humanity to this slyness before nature which we call intuition by having the fortitude of a subjective teleology of humanity, for the greater glory of which he conceptualized and pushed forward the scientific method.

[Fixed Cross]

Reason is inferior to geometry, in as far a solid conclusions are concerned, and thats just one form of thought superior to reason, though a very eminent one of course.


I do not consider geometry to be reason, but rather revelation.

[Meno_]

Reason is inferior to geometry, in as far a solid conclusions are concerned, and thats just one form of thought superior to reason, though a very eminent one of course.


I do not consider geometry to be reason, but rather revelation.

If geometry is revelation , then trigonometry becomes redemption.

[Fixed Cross]

Thats pretty good man. Yes, sir. But also, klippotik hell?

[Fixed Cross]

Geometry has the same quality as obsession.

[Fixed Cross]

People think of geometry as tranquil but it is frenetic fire.
it comes from all angles at you and presents facts at once contradicting and mutually required without relenting.



Which reminds me

The Mind of the Father
riding on the subtle guiders
which glitter with the inflexible tracings
of relentless fire.

ZOROASTER.

[Meno_]

But it has its uses, just as hell can't simply be clipped from it's predecessor.